The Anti-War Left and Terrorism
Cindy Sheehan is emerging as a symbol around which the “get out of Iraq NOW” crowd is coalescing. The premise seems to be that there is little or nothing worth continuing to fight for in Iraq, so American soldiers who are killed there are dying for nothing, or for "a lie". Moreover, some appear to be combining this with the notion - popular in the aftermath of the London bus and subway bombings - that if we’d only leave, then all motivation for terrorism would simply go away.
But there is much worth continuing to fight for in Iraq. The measured, deliberate transition to the Iraqi security forces to secure Iraq and establish a viable democracy with a real chance to take root will take time to do right – it’s not something that can be achieved through wishful thinking, or shortcuts, or precipitously disconnecting from what we've committed ourselves to. Furthermore, the postulation that getting out of Iraq will be some magical panacea for undercutting the root cause of Islamic terrorism is hopelessly naïve.
Many who oppose the war profess to be opponents of terrorism – that they recognize that the Islamofascist terrorists are brutal criminals and they do not support them. But in reality, they do support them, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not, because they insist that the blood-drenched objectives and demands for which the Islamofascist terrorists have no authority to make are meekly acquiesced to.
Western appeasers never have answered one of the underlying basic questions regarding the post-London premise that caving in to terrorist demands will reduce terrorism, which is: by what authority are bin Laden, Zawhiri, Zarqawi, and their cohorts justified in demanding that nations they don't like get out of Islamic countries? Their only "authority", in fact, is that they will murder innocent people by the thousands to achieve this object - and Western appeasers are playing right along with it by insisting that the demands are met. Would they grant similar "authority" to prospective terrorist organizations in the west if they were to demand that Muslims get out of Judeo-Christian rooted countries? No, of course not. That would be racist and xenophobic. Yet somehow Western leftists can be simpatico with the Islamofascists when THEY'RE being religiously-driven xenophobes. Not just agree with them, but support them by insisting that their blood-soaked, terrorism-backed demands are met.
More ominously, such posturing ignores much more far-reaching and ambitious rhetoric of Islamofascist leaders that have quite openly and straightforwardly stated that Islamic supremacy everywhere – not just in current Muslim nations – is the ultimate goal. And one of the biggest impediments to this goal (which Zarqawi, for one, has acknowledged) is free, open, and democratic societies in the Middle East, which is what the US is currently trying to effect in Iraq.
Contrary to the delusions of the virulent anti-war left, Islamofascist terrorists are not going to go away simply by appeasing them and by having the US leave Iraq. That's head-in-the-sand wishful thinking. Western leftists have been co-opted big time by the Islamofascist terrorists. They are, in fact, their biggest allies.
But there is much worth continuing to fight for in Iraq. The measured, deliberate transition to the Iraqi security forces to secure Iraq and establish a viable democracy with a real chance to take root will take time to do right – it’s not something that can be achieved through wishful thinking, or shortcuts, or precipitously disconnecting from what we've committed ourselves to. Furthermore, the postulation that getting out of Iraq will be some magical panacea for undercutting the root cause of Islamic terrorism is hopelessly naïve.
Many who oppose the war profess to be opponents of terrorism – that they recognize that the Islamofascist terrorists are brutal criminals and they do not support them. But in reality, they do support them, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not, because they insist that the blood-drenched objectives and demands for which the Islamofascist terrorists have no authority to make are meekly acquiesced to.
Western appeasers never have answered one of the underlying basic questions regarding the post-London premise that caving in to terrorist demands will reduce terrorism, which is: by what authority are bin Laden, Zawhiri, Zarqawi, and their cohorts justified in demanding that nations they don't like get out of Islamic countries? Their only "authority", in fact, is that they will murder innocent people by the thousands to achieve this object - and Western appeasers are playing right along with it by insisting that the demands are met. Would they grant similar "authority" to prospective terrorist organizations in the west if they were to demand that Muslims get out of Judeo-Christian rooted countries? No, of course not. That would be racist and xenophobic. Yet somehow Western leftists can be simpatico with the Islamofascists when THEY'RE being religiously-driven xenophobes. Not just agree with them, but support them by insisting that their blood-soaked, terrorism-backed demands are met.
More ominously, such posturing ignores much more far-reaching and ambitious rhetoric of Islamofascist leaders that have quite openly and straightforwardly stated that Islamic supremacy everywhere – not just in current Muslim nations – is the ultimate goal. And one of the biggest impediments to this goal (which Zarqawi, for one, has acknowledged) is free, open, and democratic societies in the Middle East, which is what the US is currently trying to effect in Iraq.
Contrary to the delusions of the virulent anti-war left, Islamofascist terrorists are not going to go away simply by appeasing them and by having the US leave Iraq. That's head-in-the-sand wishful thinking. Western leftists have been co-opted big time by the Islamofascist terrorists. They are, in fact, their biggest allies.
posted by Wascally Wabbit at 8:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home